@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:
Quote:
A terrible measure of the effectiveness of a international policy that should stop terrorism at large.
The 'international community' ( or whatever you would like to call it) failed miserably at stopping Muslim terrorism during the past couple of years, with attacks from Islamic terrorists coming in many countries. The US, however, has not had a successful attack on it since 9-11. I realize this may offend your sense of international responsibility; I'm sure you are blaming the US for those other attacks...
I'm not blaming the U.S. for all of the worlds problems. Leave your strawmen at home. What I'm saying, is what many top intelligence officials have been saying for years about these terror networks. Their networks cross borders abroad, so we can't fight it alone. I do think that many other nations haven't done their part in the international effort. I think we come closer to having a more robust security infrastructure when we aren't being isolationist about the topic.
How many successful terrorist attacks in Denmark since 9-11? Norway? Canada? etc? Since bore 9-11 for that matter. Do you understand? Saying that we haven't been attacked is not a good way to measure how secure we are.
A Lone Voice wrote:
Quote:
How did we evaluate 9/11? We had a giant report created that illustrated what we knew, when we knew it, how we acted, and when we acted. The report was pretty critical of the Bush admin, but they didn't even blush.
It would be terrible if another attack was to happen, but I feel better with a president who can cultivate a stronger international effort over a totalitarian domestic effort.
"It would be terrible if another attack was to happen," yet you would "feel better with a president who can cultivate a stronger international effort over a totalitarian domestic effort."
Strong international efforts are pretty important to people like you. I can tell you would feel terrible, too.
How about this, though? Another attack on the US is unacceptable, regardless of how the international community "feels" about it? And if another attack does happen, those in the US government who dropped the ball should be held accountable.
It looks like we've got one thing in common, standards. You are willing to hold Obama to a higher standard than Bush, and I similarly see him as someone with higher standards to meet.
If this is your philosophical outlook, then Bush would have been out of office in 2002.
The fact is that no matter how good my eyes are, two pairs, three pairs (etc) are going to be better in terms of watching out for terrorist activity.
A Lone Voice wrote:
Quote:
What will happen to those released is not just one answer. Those in Gitmo, fall into many categories. Those that shouldn't have ever been in there to begin with (Chinese Uighurs for example) should be released post haste. Those who should be tried, should be brought before a LEGITIMATE court.
I partially agree with some aspects of your point here. The Bush Admin sufferred from overreach with some of their Gitmo prisoners, sort of a one size fits all approach that wasn't going to work.
Re LEGITIMATE court, however, you are probably referring to a criminal court? Why do libs have such a strong desire to see Islamic terrorists treated as a law enforcement issue? Why invoke aspects of constitutional protection such as self incrimination, search and seizure, etc to what many see are acts of war?
A crime was committed in the USA, where said crime is defined in legal terms, therefore the person(s) responsible should be brought to trial in a criminal court. If you commit a crime in another country, you answer to their court.
The reason you give constitutional protection to all defendants is because you want whatever the ruling of the court to be--final. When you start taking away a person's ability to defend themselves, you call into question the legitimacy of the court. I want the terrorists to be caught and judged too, and that is exactly why I don't want them in some mickey mouse court.
Besides, you misunderstand the whole problem. It's not about military court versus criminal court. The Bush administration didn't want to abide by either the constitution or the Geneva Convention rules on this. They just wanted to use their own rules.
A Lone Voice wrote:
Quote:
Educate yourself. Not everyone in Gitmo is some violent criminal.
Didn't say they were. My point (and I'm glad to repeat it) was this:
Voters are pretty forgiving with politicians; Obama will enjoy this more than any other president in modern history. What voters will not forgive, however, are certain mistakes involving 'He should have known better.'
Simply, if a few of these Islamic terrorists being released from Gitmo later turn around and inflict more violence on the US in a later attack, voters will hold the Obama admin accountable.
And what of all the people released who simply try to return to their countries and rebuild their lives?
We need to be building cases on the terrorists, not just holding them in a cell and calling it a day. If we KNOW they are guilty, lets send them to court with all of our evidence.
This is another reason why an international effort is so important. We release person A to country A. We should have a good working relationship with country A to help monitor the activities of person A. Hell, it's even their prerogative to help monitor them since in all likelihood any act of terrorism would happen in their area.
The Bush admin had a very bad case of tunnel vision.
A Lone Voice wrote:
Quote:
You can't imprison people for crimes they may commit. If you have the evidence that they conspire to commit crimes sure, but if that's the case, send it to trial. Taking someone's freedom away should not be such a cavalier activity. If you ever wanted a reason to hate a country enough to fight back, imprisonment for years without a trial might be a pretty strong motivator. It might make you more prone to be recruited by people with the means to do harm.
So the original 9-11 Islamic terrorists didn't have reason enough to hate on their own? Or the first WTC attack?
Sure they did. That's not what I said. Pure strawman. But look in countries like Iraq, our presence increased recruitment into terror groups (I'm not talking about insurgents).
A Lone Voice wrote:
What are you trying to say here? That the only reason there are Islamic terrorists is because of Gitmo? What nonsense!
Enough scarecrow, Lone Voice.
We can't, nor should we imprison people for crimes that they might commit. We can't take people's liberty away then wonder why they have animosity towards us. We can't continue to hold them because we are afraid of that animosity either. What we can do is take evidence of crimes committed and send those people who did the act to court. If we catch someone who conspires to commit a crime, we can use evidence of that in a court as well. If we don't have that evidence, why did we catch them? how?
T
K
O
